kungfustu Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 How much do they bring in to the UK economy ?Probably more than they cost. From tourism....who knows but it has to be a lot....people come to this country just to visit these sites and take in all the pomp and pageantry. But there are massive off shoots from it all.....when wills and kate went down under on their tour and introduced the little fella to the crowds.....I read somewhere that the dungerees he had on and anything similar had sold out everywhere in a matter of days and hours thus is the attraction and desire to copy them....so for me they are a win win.....My ozzie mate came over for a visit a few weeks back.....he was staying in London for a few days....the very first place he and his wife visited was Buck palace and they wanted to see as many Royal attractions as possible during their stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Britain had its violent revolution in 1649 - 30 January when they beheaded King Charles 1- long before the French or the Russians got round to it. After that there was no more 'absolute monarchy' and the ultimate power went to Parliament. The monarchy was never allowed to rule since that time, they became figureheads. Now is the time to abolish the figureheads, they are too expensive. Yes, it was a revolution but it did not result in the monarchy being abolished forever. Another way to look at it, is to say that, after twelve years of Cromwell, the people were sick of having a form of republic, so the monarchy was restored, and has been there continuously since 1660. And the whole point of this post was to prove that the monarchy is NOT too expensive. Read the article, then come back and explain why that is incorrect. The article points out, for example, that Germany and France spend as much as if not more on their republics and presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 From tourism....who knows but it has to be a lot....people come to this country just to visit these sites and take in all the pomp and pageantry. But there are massive off shoots from it all.....when wills and kate went down under on their tour and introduced the little fella to the crowds.....I read somewhere that the dungerees he had on and anything similar had sold out everywhere in a matter of days and hours thus is the attraction and desire to copy them....so for me they are a win win.....My ozzie mate came over for a visit a few weeks back.....he was staying in London for a few days....the very first place he and his wife visited was Buck palace and they wanted to see as many Royal attractions as possible during their stay. Footballers, actors, etc, all paid huge sums to promote cars, watches, clothes, etc. British and other companies must be clamouring to have Kate or George wear their clothes. People talk about going to the 'empty' palaces in the republic countries, but it's not the same. And you only have to look at the plethora of souvenirs in London, which don't just feature empty palaces, but all the members of the Royal Family. And who loves them more than anyone else? The Americans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 How much do they bring in to the UK economy ?Probably more than they cost. Read the article and look at the costs, especially those comparing Britain to Germany and France. We will not save any money by becoming a republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 I did not realize that there was another revolution in Britain, in 1688, when James II was replaced by William of Orange. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is considered by some as being one of the most important events in the long evolution of the respective powers of Parliament and the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights, it stamped out once and for all any possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards absolute monarchy in the British kingdoms by circumscribing the monarch's powers. These powers were greatly restricted; he or she could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's permission – to this day the Army is known as the "British Army" not the "Royal Army" as it is, in some sense, Parliament's Army and not that of the King. (This is, however, a complex issue, as the Crown remained – and remains – the source of all executive authority in the British army, with legal implications for unlawful orders etc.).[99] Since 1689, government under a system of constitutional monarchy in England, and later the United Kingdom, has been uninterrupted. Since then, Parliament's power has steadily increased while the Crown's has steadily declined. Unlike in the English civil war of the mid-seventeenth century, the "Glorious Revolution" did not involve the masses of ordinary people in England (the majority of the bloodshed occurred in Ireland). This fact has led many historians, including Stephen Webb,[100] to suggest that, in England at least, the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution.[g] This view of events does not contradict what was originally meant by "revolution": the coming round of an old system of values in a circular motion, back to its original position, as Britain's constitution was reasserted, rather than formed anew.[101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 (edited) Yes, it was a revolution but it did not result in the monarchy being abolished forever. Another way to look at it, is to say that, after twelve years of Cromwell, the people were sick of having a form of republic, so the monarchy was restored, and has been there continuously since 1660. And the whole point of this post was to prove that the monarchy is NOT too expensive. Read the article, then come back and explain why that is incorrect. The article points out, for example, that Germany and France spend as much as if not more on their republics and presidents. Not many would fancy living under a puritan like Cromwell would they tho? You talk of cost again Dave,as tho this is the only thing that matters,its not,not in my eyes,for the reasons given already. While you, and the unashamedly biased article,talk of what the tax payer gives them,and what they bring in in "tourism",neither of you mention the 10 billion crown estate value,or why one family should enjoy the benefits of this,but no matter eh,its "just the way it is",so must be right! Oh,and btw,it was john major who recently said lizzy influenced political decisions,and charlie boy has been at it for years,a bit of transparency would be an honest thing for charlie to do,like pay corporation tax for one!,to "invite" HMRC to audit his expenses(they don't now),i mean,the future king,charging the tax payer about £1.5 million a year in rent,to house his countries criminals in Dartmoor doesn't sit right me,does it with you? Edited July 23, 2014 by pablo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itegoa Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I'm sick of reading all of the "xxx costs this much £££" in the media. Why don't we just get rid of everything! Everyone can be given a bottle of water and a tin of Heinz baked beans to live off each day, that would be a lot cheaper! We could then start buying Aldi beans to save a few more pence. Someone would still complain that it costs too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, the Royal Family may well enjoy the income from the Crown Estates, but they do not actually 'own' it, and they cannot sell it, any more than the US President could sell the White House. And of course it's not just about 'cost', but also 'value.' That article may be biased, but it does not mean it is all lies. Yes, Cromwell was a puritan, but then lots of people in England were puritans at that time, otherwise there would have been no army to fight the Royalists. You want to destroy our present system on the grounds that it is unfair, but you don't offer any viable alternatives, with reasons why a republic will be better? Why will it be cheaper than the present system? Why will it be fairer? Will the people be happier once the money from the Royal Family is redistributed to whatever services you would like to put them into? Would the people even notice? Surely the only way to assess what Britain would be like as a republic is to compare it to other countries that ditched their own Royal Families, and became republics? Russia, France, Germany, Italy, come to mind. And not just compare Britain to the republics but also compare the other European countries that retain their monarchies, The Netherlands for instance. In any case, why is it 'fair' that premiership footballers earn so much money compared to the rest of us? Why should Wayne Rooney earn more in a week than I earn in five years? If you want fairness, then why should he be able to pass on his wealth to his descendants. Surely, if you want fairness, then everybody's wealth should revert to the State, on death? What is more likely to happen is that he will be knighted, thus becoming a part of the establishment you so hate, maybe even becoming a peer. From a purely legal point of view, how would you change the law to take the Royal Family's wealth and property, and not change it for everybody else, all the great landowners for instance. What about the Russian oligarchs who ripped off their country's wealth and have now invested in billions of pounds of property in Britain. Is that fair? Surely, that wealth should be given back to the Russian people? Not lavished on a football club and a handful of players? You might say the same about Manchester City? Why should the ruler of whichever country it is - is he a king by the way - be able to divert money from his people to a foreign football club and another small group of privileged people? The bottom line for me is that if the people want to change to a republic, then that will happen, because Parliament, not the Crown rules in Britain, which I think was the result of the English Civil War. And if the monarchy ever stuffs up in a mega way, then we will become a republic. But will we be happier? I look around and can't see any evidence of this in any republic. And I'm pretty sure that most people in Britain, given the choice between emigrating to the republican USA, or the constitutional monarchy of Canada, would choose Canada? How about you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. The Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £8.1[1] billion, with urban properties valued at around £4 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.[2] The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 144,000 ha (356,000 ac) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park. Although nominally belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, the Crown Estate, like the Crown Jewels, is not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her, nor do any revenues, or debts, from the estate accrue to the monarch, as they no longer govern in person. That role has been replaced by the de facto authority of Parliament. The Royal Family is not barred from ownership of private property: Balmoral Castle in Scotland, for example, was purchased by Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, and not by the Queen herself and is not part of the Crown Estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well, the Royal Family may well enjoy the income from the Crown Estates, but they do not actually 'own' it, and they cannot sell it, any more than the US President could sell the White House. And of course it's not just about 'cost', but also 'value.' That article may be biased, but it does not mean it is all lies. Yes, Cromwell was a puritan, but then lots of people in England were puritans at that time, otherwise there would have been no army to fight the Royalists. Armies didn't just fight for principles/morals back then,they fought for money,influence,and because they were sick of being downtrodden by the royals and their like,who knows,maybe if it hadn't have been Cromwell we might be a republic You want to destroy our present system on the grounds that it is unfair, but you don't offer any viable alternatives, with reasons why a republic will be better? Why will it be cheaper than the present system? Why will it be fairer? Will the people be happier once the money from the Royal Family is redistributed to whatever services you would like to put them into? Would the people even notice? Surely the only way to assess what Britain would be like as a republic is to compare it to other countries that ditched their own Royal Families, and became republics? Russia, France, Germany, Italy, come to mind. And not just compare Britain to the republics but also compare the other European countries that retain their monarchies, The Netherlands for instance. Just to remind you Dave,i have said already we wont get rid of the royal family haven't i?so i'm not saying do away with them(it wont happen),i have suggested their lands and property should belong to the public,not forever in the hands of one family because of 800 year old feudal laws,so why are my suggestions of.... Putting all the castles,palaces and land into public ownership "would" make it cheaper,even you must acknowledge that?! Turn them into hotels,conference centres,convalescence homes,farm all the land,that would have to generate a lot of money wouldn't it? Would this make the royal family unroyal or something?i mean if we still let them all live rent free forever,but just in Buck Palace,would that be so bad? why do they have sole use of all these lands and properties,do you think thats right,if you do,can you tell me why one family needs all that? In any case, why is it 'fair' that premiership footballers earn so much money compared to the rest of us? Why should Wayne Rooney earn more in a week than I earn in five years? If you want fairness, then why should he be able to pass on his wealth to his descendants. Surely, if you want fairness, then everybody's wealth should revert to the State, on death? What is more likely to happen is that he will be knighted, thus becoming a part of the establishment you so hate, maybe even becoming a peer. It isn't anywhere near the same,there is no law that "guarantees" footballers x amount of money,there is laws that one family rule us forever,totally different scenario From a purely legal point of view, how would you change the law to take the Royal Family's wealth and property, and not change it for everybody else, all the great landowners for instance. What about the Russian oligarchs who ripped off their country's wealth and have now invested in billions of pounds of property in Britain. Is that fair? Surely, that wealth should be given back to the Russian people? Not lavished on a football club and a handful of players? I thought you said Parliament makes the laws? if the great land owner were given their lands by the acts of peerage,then yes i would take those too. You might say the same about Manchester City? Why should the ruler of whichever country it is - is he a king by the way - be able to divert money from his people to a foreign football club and another small group of privileged people? The bottom line for me is that if the people want to change to a republic, then that will happen, because Parliament, not the Crown rules in Britain, which I think was the result of the English Civil War. And if the monarchy ever stuffs up in a mega way, then we will become a republic. But will we be happier? I look around and can't see any evidence of this in any republic. And I'm pretty sure that most people in Britain, given the choice between emigrating to the republican USA, or the constitutional monarchy of Canada, would choose Canada? How about you? No,the uk will never be a republic,i dont know why you keep assuming i think it will be,i know it wont,my point tho is the above,keep them,because thats what the populace want,but change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The Duchies,are their private income,the crown estate was mentioned because its worth ten billion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 I'm sick of reading all of the "xxx costs this much £££" in the media. Why don't we just get rid of everything! Everyone can be given a bottle of water and a tin of Heinz baked beans to live off each day, that would be a lot cheaper! We could then start buying Aldi beans to save a few more pence. Someone would still complain that it costs too much. The baked bean republic! I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 No,the uk will never be a republic,i dont know why you keep assuming i think it will be,i know it wont,my point tho is the above,keep them,because thats what the populace want,but change! The monarchy has changed, over the centuries, sometimes subject to revolution, but that is why they are still here, in an almost unbroken line since 1066, and beyond. Perhaps at some point the present House of Windsor will run out of heirs, and at that point, we could become a republic, if we don't fancy another foreign king/queen. I suppose you could turn all those palaces into hospitals and conference centres, though whether it would achieve any benefit I don't know. It has been many years since the monarch exercised real political power. As I said, Parliament is supreme. I don't know how you can take the big palaces and castles back into public ownership even if they were given to the present owners ancestors by the reigning monarch? Parliament is supreme but they would have to create new laws. I think I like things as they are, imperfections and all. I wish Putin WOULD take Abramovich's wealth back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It's gone up then?! not the usual 35 pence per person any more lol,ahhh me heart bleeds for them,can't we give them vast swathes of land off which they can earn millions or something? oh we do dont we! and the met police picks up their security bill too,mind you,she only has a personal fortune of 350 mill,cant expect her to pay her own way out of that pittance,let the commoners pay say iGod save the queen! Nearly as much as Gerard then :tongue: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Nearly as much as Gerard then :tongue: Nearly,but i dont have to keep Gerrard in corgi's:smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Nearly,but i dont have to keep corgi's:smile: Nope Just ferrari's, lamborghini's, and tears of emotion :notworthy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The monarchy has changed, over the centuries, sometimes subject to revolution, but that is why they are still here, in an almost unbroken line since 1066, and beyond. Perhaps at some point the present House of Windsor will run out of heirs, and at that point, we could become a republic, if we don't fancy another foreign king/queen. I suppose you could turn all those palaces into hospitals and conference centres, though whether it would achieve any benefit I don't know. It has been many years since the monarch exercised real political power. As I said, Parliament is supreme. I don't know how you can take the big palaces and castles back into public ownership even if they were given to the present owners ancestors by the reigning monarch? Parliament is supreme but they would have to create new laws. It hasn't changed that much that it has given back use of its palaces and properties or lands Of course it would achieve benefit,we pay for the upkeep of these properties anyway,and for what?so the royals can use them 2 or 3 weeks a year?! So yes,if they were treated as a paying tourist attraction yr round,or hotels,farm the land etc etc,it would be more beneficial than the royals having sole use of them. I cant understand why people find it hard to grasp that the royals dont need to have sole use of dozens of castles and palaces,i think its a simple case of what you just implied. "We like things the way they are","its just the way it is",ah well,each to their own,san fairy ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Nope Just ferrari's, lamborghini's, and tears of emotion :notworthy: No,but i dont have to,big difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 No,but i dont have to,big difference Neither do 2.12 million people in UK have to pay for our monarchy :jiggy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Neither do 2.12 million people in UK have to pay for our monarchy :jiggy: Well bully for them,and what btw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Well bully for them,and what btw? 2.12 million unemployed in the UK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It does surprise me how people embrace the royal family down here (well in NZ) they have to pay for their travel costs to come here and all the regalia that goes on, yet they see the positives of what the Royal family bring i.e $1.4 billion of trade to New Zealand alone. Now I am sorry but that's one hell of a sales team me thinks taking not alot of commission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 It does surprise me how people embrace the royal family down here (well in NZ) they have to pay for their travel costs to come here and all the regalia that goes on, yet they see the positives of what the Royal family bring i.e $1.4 billion of trade to New Zealand alone. Now I am sorry but that's one hell of a sales team me thinks taking not alot of commission The figures of what the royals earn are pure guesswork most of the time,plus them only owning one palace wouldn't affect this 1.4 billion dollars you say they bring in,would it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 2.12 million unemployed in the UK! Yes,i know what you meant,im asking the relevance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletchaman Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The figures of what the royals earn are pure guesswork most of the time,plus them only owning one palace wouldn't affect this 1.4 billion dollars you say they bring in,would it I have seen the derelict castles and grand houses that have been left to the people why would you want the buildings given up? Oh and did you know the queen owns 33 trillion acres of land, who would look after that should we become a republic, cos I know for a fact I ain't mowing it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.